earticle

영어

The notification requirements in Art. 39 of the CISG have been considered drastically sanctioned rules in the Convention, and their consequences are indeed dramatic : if sufficient and timely notice has not been given, the buyer cannot rely on any non-conformity of the goods, and has no remedies available to him. However there are two exceptions to this rule, in Arts. 40 and 44 of the CISG, which act as safety-valves in cases where notice is not given within the time periods prescribed by Art. 39. This first exception is found in Art. 40 CISG. Art. 40 CISG gives rise to several types of problems concerning interpretation and uniformity. The first group of problems concerns the question of sphere of application and the surrounding domestic laws, which may complement the seller's bad faith. The second group of problems concerning uniformity within Art. 40 is the determination of the degree of awareness required by the provision in order for it to be applicable. The term ‘could not have been unaware’ has caused many problems in case law, and setting a standard has proven difficult. This same standard of awareness applies to the question of whether the seller was aware of the existence of a non-conformity, and also to the question of whether the seller was aware that the non-conformity in question constituted a non-conformity for the buyer. Another problem tied to the application of this provision is the question of whether the problem in question can be said to have been disclosed to the buyer.

한국어

CISG 제39조는 매수인이 인도받은 물품을 검사한 후 물품의 부적합에 대하여 매도인에게 통지하여야만 부적합을 원용할 권리가 있다고 규정하고 있다. 하지만 제40조와 제44조는 동 규정 에 대한 예외로서 매도인의 악의가 있는 경우 매도인은 제38조와 제39조를 원용할 권리를 상실하 고, 매수인의 부적합 불통지에 대한 합리적인 사유가 있는 경우에는 대금감액과 손해배상을 청구 할 수 있는 권리를 부여하고 있다. 그런데 동 제40조를 적용함에 있어서 매수인의 이해가 부족하여 매수인이 손해를 입는다든지, 혹은 해석상의 문제를 야기하여 동 규정의 적용상 통일성 증진을 훼손할 우려가 있는 부분이 있다. 따라서 본 연구는 제40조의 규정을 연구대상으로 하여 그 기능과 역할, 적용범위와 그 효과, 적용 배제 혹은 그 효과 변경, 적용상의 통일성 증진을 훼손할 수 있는 부분들을 고찰하고자 한다.